“The supporters of this bill are people who love their children and understand that you can’t make your children something they’re not born to be,” Sweeney said this week in an interview on my SiriusXM radio program. “You’re born to be what you are. Religious organizations -- no one -- should be involved in this type of behavior. I have a child who is disabled. And I love my daughter as much as I love my son. Because my daughter’s different, it doesn’t make her less valued. Why some religious groups would make someone feel they’re less valued, less of a person, is really troubling to me.”

“Something like this, he wouldn’t express it until it’s time for him to act,” he said. “When he vetoed marriage equality, that was a loud statement of indifference. I’m not sure where the governor will be on this.”

Regarding a veto override of the marriage bill, Sweeney said, “I’m three votes short right now, but we’ve moved the bill early on. We think we’ve got a shot at overriding the governor because it’s a civil rights issue.”

“Civil rights is not something that should voted on,” said Sweeney. "I wholehearted disagree with that approach. We’re not in a liberal state. We’re in a moderate state. In California they voted to make marriage equality illegal, in the most liberal state in the country. I understand [Gusciora’s] frustration. But I cannot in good conscience put this up for a ballot vote, see it go down, and then New Jersey is viewed as a conservative state. You know, New Jersey, back in 1915, voted against a woman’s right to vote. Now, people say, 'We won in the three states [Maryland, Maine and Washington].' And millions of dollars were spent. And they won. But they lost in 30 states before. I’m not willing to put something on the ballot and allow someone to choose civil rights.”

Gusciora had also called for a vote on the veto override now, even if it doesn’t pass, and charged that the Democratic leadership doesn't want to move for an override of Christie's veto now because Democrats want to wait in order use the issue of marriage equality against Republicans in the elections in the fall.

“I’m offended by the statement,” Sweeney responded. “I am truly offended by his position and statement. The assemblyman has never spoken to me or reached out to me to ask what our strategy or plan is. This is not political. This is about civil rights. Who says we’re not going to vote after the election? Look, we wanted to give our Republican colleagues who are supportive the chance to get beyond the primaries, where they’ve been threatened, in primaries. You saw what happened in New York State, where people were primaried out of office. I’m not looking to lose people because of this issue. I’m not one to do that to my colleagues because I want to work with them to get this done. Unfortunately it’s the assemblyman who has not spoken to anyone on this issue. The difference is, I have been speaking to the leading groups on marriage equality.”